Increasingly, I've come around to the Pollack view--invasion would be desirable--both because it would take care of a nasty problem and because if done right it would set a wonderful tone for the century: "America, the serious but responsible hegemon.
At the moment, that policy still looks like a lose-lose to me for the Bushies. Invade and they will run into a torrent of public opposition which will grow to levels we have not seen since the Vietnam years when the body bags start coming back.
Unless, the Bushies can demonstrate, convincingly, to the public at large that (a) there is some serious and deep connection between 9-11 and Iraq and/or (b) Saddam not only has wmd but will, most definitely, use them either to harm the 9-11 crew (most likely) or in the middle east in some way.
If they don't do something about Iraq, and this is the other side of the "lose," now that they have permitted the anti-Iraq rhetoric to get ratcheted so high, they will suffer.
Right now, given the way they've negotiated the Iraq stuff, it looks like to me they have to choose a lesser evil, from their point of view.
Oh, yes, I should underline the fact that I think I'm talking about decision making at the highest levels among the Bushies, if it can be called that (that latter is an allusion to the political smarts at the top level but not necessarily the foreign policy detail smarts)
John |
